Chuck's Journal vs the Psychiatrists
by Arathorn73
Summary: Chuck is required to keep a journal for analysis by the government. The actual journal is in Chuck vs. the Journal. This companion piece explores the government psychiatrists' reactions to the journal entries.
1. Initial Report 8 days

_This is a companion piece to my on-going story called Chuck vs. the Journal, also hosted on this site. That piece contains Chuck's journal, which he was required to write by the government, to evaluate his mental well-being. This story contains the analysis of that story's journal. It won't make sense unless you've read the journal._

**

* * *

**

Case #:

32e227bb8df8f072d6dcdf9170344e10

**Date:** Dec. 8, 2008

**Background: **Dr. Kazlowski and Dr. Foreman are two of the top government agency psychiatrists, each having an MD and a PhD. They have worked with interrogations, agent reclamations after torture, and a number of other activities that uniquely qualify them to evaluate the mental health and stability of the human Intersect. They both had "eyes only" clearance before this project.

To protect the human Intersect, additional security measures were taken. The doctors were subjected to additional polygraph tests. All names were shrouded before passing the journal on, but they have been unshrouded for this report. The basic relations – sister, co-worker, boss, handler – and basic individuals in those roles were provided prior to the journal.

The doctors were only told the bare minimum – that the subject is an intelligence asset who is invaluable but is being left free for various reasons. Sketches of some previous missions and our analysis of his relationships were also provided.

**Report:**

_Abstract_: Using civilians as intelligence assets or as agents has a checkered past. Often, agency's greatest highs and lowest lows can be tracked to the mercurial mental state of untrained, undisciplined individuals. We examine another such case. No immediate red flags are present, but the financial situation and a relationship with a handler bear close watching.

_Introduction_: Initial data given to us about the subject indicates that he has three close relations, his sister, Ellie, his best friend, Morgan, and his handler, Agent Walker. He has been effectively coerced into working with the government while maintaining a pre-existing near-minimum-wage job. Our only interaction with the subject is through a series of journal entries. He is being required to log at least 500 words daily for a month.

Studies of this nature have been performed before (c.f., [1][4]) and the methodology is well established [3]. Over time, most subjects will gradually come to look at the journal as a source of comfort and a trusted outlet. The lack of feedback gives an illusion of lack of interest, which creates feelings of relaxation and disclosure of more details. Rarely does a subject reveal anything distinctly treasonous, but the general state-of-mind and potential sources of leverage are frequently revealed.

The eventual goal of this study is to provide a fuller understanding of the subject's general state-of-mind. Typically, we have been able to provide a list of recommendations at the end of the report, to increase the likelihood that the asset will perform more in-line with the expectations of our agencies.

_Methodology_: We analyze the word selection, the language and the emotional tenor of each entry. We compare his scores on multiple criteria against established mean and median values, to produce initial evidence of outliers. Additionally, we cross-reference some of the final scores against a database of journals created by agents, civilians, and other sources, to find common references. The individuals who most closely match the subject are examined and a general trend line from their performance has been shown to closely correlate with additional subjects [4].

We also read each entry multiple times and brainstorm about possible interpretations. While the psychological field has become reasonably adept at predicting overall changes and trends in society, specific individuals continue to resist efforts to accurately predict. We try to consider all possible outcomes and then prune away those which are deemed to be least likely. This process is too premature to report, at this point. We must wait until more data is acquired, to not bias ourselves or others.

_Initial Observations_: After eight days of entries, we generally do not learn much. All information contained in this report should be considered tenuous, at best. Previous experience has taught us that a subject is usually quite reticent to expose any real emotions until time has dulled defenses and the monotony of the journal has become so ingrained that the subject chooses his words less carefully.

We can deduce a few things from the initial entries, however. First, the fact that each entry is precisely 500 words tells us that the subject is very exacting of himself. It is more difficult to write exactly 500 words than to write a small number over 500. We also believe that this is an act of defiance against the strictures being placed around his life – he is making it clear that he will only do the minimum amount required, even if it takes longer. Current data indicates that this appears to be a healthy outlet for rebellion, but we must consider the possibility of less healthy alternatives, as well. We believe the risk of flight for this subject is higher than normal, because of this factor.

Second, the subject is obviously hiding something about Agent Walker. His other handler, Agent Casey, is mentioned a total of 4 times on 3 different days, including reasonably personal references that indicate the subject considers Agent Casey to be a friend. However, Agent Walker is not mentioned at all. Something in their relationship is causing the subject to not mention her. We believe her omission to be deliberate, considering the style of the entries and the mentions of so many other individuals by name. No fewer than 11 potential links to her were discovered in the first 8 days, without mention. The initial data given to us [2] indicated that they were close and involved in a cover relationship. Without additional information except his repeated protestations to protect everyone, we can only hypothesize that he is trying to protect Agent Walker. However, it may be that he is angry with her, does not work well with her, or any of a host of other causes. We also have no indication about the type of protection he may believe he is providing. Any guess would be pure speculation at this point and should be dismissed until more data is forthcoming. This situation bears very close watching in the future.

Third, people are very important to the subject. He mentions 10 different personal relations by name (Jill, Ellie, Captain Awesome, Morgan, Jeff, Lester, Anna, Casey, Dad, and Lou), several repeatedly. His closest relationship appears to be with his sister, Ellie, and his best friend, Morgan. They are both mentioned on 6 different days – he with 12 references by names and she with 8. These are obviously relationships from which he draws strength and severing either of them would probably have a negative impact on his efficacy.

Fourth, the subject's reticence to the journal project is already starting to wane. He is starting to provide details about his thoughts and feelings. If he continues on this trend, we will be able to do a fuller evaluation of his mental health and stability. This opening up is occurring earlier than is normal. However, it is not unprecedented. We, of course, will consider the fact that he is making up emotions/feelings which he believes will be acceptable. No indicators, other than the earliness of the appearance of emotions, point to falsifying records, at this point, but we will continue to monitor.

Fifth, the danger of financial compromise of the subject must be considered. On two separate occasions, the subject has bemoaned his lack of funds and the ability to do what he wants financially. Monetary bribes are often the easiest for enemies to make. Studies have also shown that they are the easiest to internally justify. Since the subject seems to be interested in helping other people, financial bribes would seem to be a fruitful avenue for those bent on using him to pursue. Additional information on his financial situation would be valuable, if it can be procured and communicated without endangering individuals.

Overall, we find no immediate cause for alarm. The relationship with Agent Walker and the financial factors bear close watching, however.

_References:_

[1] Foreman, Hernandez, and Wang. "Case study ab8f9239b1abb77e4055399eca84e36." CIA special report. May, 2003.  
[2] Government Report 333722 "Initial Data on Case 32e227bb8df8f072d6dcdf9170344e10." November, 2008.  
[3] Kazlowski. "Revised Method for Studying Subjects Without Interaction". NSA Brief. September, 1989.  
[4] Kazlowski, et al., "Case study e01dbf1fd928b6195620154a358bf34c." NSA Special Report, March, 1999.

_

* * *

_

Author's Challenge: Anybody who can figure out the Case Study Numbers and can determine who the individuals in the other studies are will get significant respect from me and a cameo in future writing, if desired.


	2. Midpoint Report 15 days

_This is a companion piece to Chuck vs. the Journal. That piece contains Chuck's journal, which he was required to write by the government, to evaluate his mental well-being. This story contains the analysis of the journal. It won't make sense unless you've read the journal._

_Journal note – the episode aired on 12/15 took place on 12/24, so the events from that episode won't appear in the journal until that date._

* * *

Case #: 32e227bb8df8f072d6dcdf9170344e10

**Date:** Dec. 17, 2008

**Report:**

_Abstract_: Using civilians as intelligence assets or as agents has a checkered past. Often, agency's greatest highs and lowest lows can be tracked to the mercurial mental state of untrained, undisciplined individuals. This is the second report in an on-going examination of a valuable civilian asset.

_Introduction_: Our only interaction with the subject is through a series of journal entries. He is being required to log at least 500 words daily for a month. The eventual goal of this study is to provide a list of recommendations at the end of the report, to increase the likelihood that the asset will perform more in-line with the expectations of our agencies [4].

_Methodology_: At this point, we are still primarily examining the general motives of the subject and looking for obvious patterns in his journal entries. We have begun preliminary investigations into word selection and techniques, but these methods require at least 11,000 words before they become statistically relevant. For more details, see the initial report [1].

_Midpoint Observations_: The majority of the entries in the second time period followed the subject's established norms – exactly 500 words describing events from the day, meandering philosophical discussions based on contemplation of earlier events, articles reflecting on the unfairness of the situation, etc. The entry of the 11th broke all of those norms and demands its own analysis, which will follow the opening discussion of on-going trends.

We see continued signs of concern about finances – while discussing donations, holiday presents, changing residences, and in a variety of other contexts. We also see on-going signs of the subject's resistance to the project – exactly 500 words written in most entries. This and the vocabulary selections of the subject lead us to believe he is highly intelligent and capable, when properly motivated. The on-going theme of the importance of people is the most prevalent, however. Not a single entry dealt with purely personal issues; every day had some interpersonal relations discussed.

Even without being informed that the subject was a civilian, we would have been able to posit his role with a reasonably high expectation of success. The subject appears to have a very open personality. He discusses the difficulty of keeping secrets. We also have seen more personal disclosures and introspection events recorded at this point than we often do after a full month. The strain of keeping his double life secret will continue to be a challenge for the subject. This concern is exacerbated by the details of the entry of the 11th outlined below.

The subject appears to believe himself adrift, personally and professionally. Many entries end or move through sentiments of lack of direction or, worse, a perceived lack of control over the future. "How do I get there from here?" [6] is indicative of the subject's desire to control destiny, while admitting to an inability to envision the path necessary. One entry contemplating this directionless existence would not be unusual [3], but the subject addresses the issue in no fewer than five entries (9th, 10th, 11th, 13th and 14th). This is indicative of a potentially disturbing pattern. A feeling of lack of control is often an effective point at which to begin a conversion. Giving an illusion of control can start to influence and individual and mask their ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality. This should be watched closely.

These all combine to give the impression that the subject is lacking a mentor or other trusted individual in whom he can confide. He himself recognizes this, bemoaning the short-coming on a number of occasions. He seems to not trust Agent Casey and is too emotionally involved with Agent Walker for her to be a full confidant. The other civilians in the subject's life are all obviously unsuited, with the possible exception of Captain Awesome. The journal has provided an outlet, but all written records are subject to compromise and are therefore potentially dangerous, too. Until an outlet for his emotions are found, the subject will continue to be inordinately volatile and unpredictable, even beyond what it normally expected.

The very interesting entry on the 11th only further supports this evidence. The subject's confidence and secrecy masks do not seem to crack, like many people's do; rather they shatter into a complete surrender to other instincts and interests. This trait has been linked with additional susceptibility to dissociative fugues, depression, and long work absences. It is also very difficult to predict. For example, Agent name omitted showed this tendency. After three failed missions, one including torture, we believed him to be safely past it. Then his pet cat died, and he disappeared off grid for two years. When we found him, he was living a life as a dentist in Arizona [5]. This personality trait also makes changing any of the subject's surroundings fraught with difficulty. It is impossible to tell what might trigger a shattering of confidence. While this particular incident appears to have had very short-lived consequences (the subject's entries were back to approximately normal the next day), the next may trigger a multi-year depression or fugue.

This personality trait also increases the likelihood that the subject will attempt to flee his role and responsibility with little or no warning. The delicate nature of a person who fluctuates so wildly in writing, with loss of discipline, points to potential problems with abrogating other responsibilities, when the difficulties become too high, instead of confronting things head-on initially.

The nature of the subject's relationship with Agent Walker has been clarified, though not resolved. He is clearly dangerously infatuated with her and wishes she would return his affection. Because the subject is untrained, determining her true motives from his perspective is nearly impossible. Knowing Agent Walker's true feelings would be an additional clue to the puzzle, which would allow a fuller examination of the nature and perceptiveness of the subject.

A danger comes in her ability to protect him. By the nature of their professions, agents are required to go into dangerous circumstances frequently. The subject professed a desire to protect Agent Walker and a willingness to die in her stead. This will exacerbate the danger of all situations, as Agent Walker must not only protect herself but must also worry about the safety of the asset. As the asset is untrained in all matters, this will inevitably lead to increased exposure to danger for both, unnecessarily.

However, because of the high probability of emotional fragility of the subject, as indicated by his inability to reasonably hide his feelings for Agent Walker in innocuous talk and the nature of the ultimate disclosure, removing Agent Walker from the situation is not recommended. Her presence may be a primary factor keeping the subject from completely abandoning responsibility to missions. Additionally, the value of the subject might need to be compared to that of Agent Walker. It is distinctly possible that her presence will be necessitated for the entire duration of the subject's mission life, that is, while the subject's continued support will be required. It may already be too late to pull her without doing irreparable harm to the subject.

The subject uses the word "real" or "really" in reference to Agent Walker or their relationship 17 times in this day's entry. His vacillation between believing that Agent Walker has shown her real self and believing their relationship might be real and the fear and belief that it is all a sham is understandable. Civilians generally have no understanding of the rigors of the training undergone by agents and how scrupulously they protect honest information about themselves or their families (though Agent Walker apparently introduced her father to the subject, which may be indicative of additional compromise on her part).

Matters of the heart are notoriously difficult to predict. Since the subject is so obviously emotional about his perceived relationship with Agent Walker, we can expect to see illogical behavior and unpredictable changes in mood and demeanor. Every action of Agent Walker is probably analyzed and searched for meanings, intended or accidental. She will probably prove the fulcrum on which his future behavior will tilt. That is dangerous but it does provide a possible method of projecting additional power over the subject.

_Request for Information:_ The midpoint of the study period provides an opportunity to request additional information, beyond the background already presented [2]. We understand the sensitivity of all information surrounding this subject and realize that our requests may not be honored, but we cannot overstress how much additional information aids the process of understanding a subject.

The first piece of information involves the feelings of Agent Walker towards the subject. While these should not be communicated to the subject, knowing how well he is reading the situation will provide better insights into his psyche. Additionally, the potential for dangerous compromise of the agent exists and we would like to study this in greater depth. This report should come directly from Agent Walker – any information from Agent Casey would be as subject to misinterpretation as that from the subject himself.

Second, the history of the subject did not mention any episodes of dissociative fugue or significant bouts with depression. The subject has made very little mention of his past, and the past informs the future. A fuller medical and psychological profile would be advantageous.

_References:_

[1] Foreman, Kazlowski. "Initial Report on Case 32e227bb8df8f072d6dcdf9170344e10." December, 2008.  
[2] Government Report 333722 "Initial Data on Case 32e227bb8df8f072d6dcdf9170344e10." November, 2008.  
[3] Hernandez, Kazlowski, Wang. "Case study 3334ddb94c78921e61f4565ce5bebf15." NSA Special Report. June, 1986.  
[4] Kazlowski. "Revised Method for Studying Subjects Without Interaction". NSA Brief. September, 1989.  
[5] Kazlowski, Poulus. "Case study 5f84dfc29d684bec1db746aa491ef914 Follow-Up: On the Nature of Dissociative Fugues and Associated Traits." February, 2002.  
[6] Subject's journal. "Day 13." December, 2008.


	3. Final Report

_This is a companion piece to Chuck vs. the Journal. That piece contains Chuck's journal, which he was required to write by the government, to evaluate his mental well-being. This story contains the analysis of the journal. It won't make sense unless you've read the journal._

32e227bb8df8f072d6dcdf9170344e10

* * *

Case #:

**Date:** Jan. 6, 2009

**Report:**

_Abstract_: Using civilians as intelligence assets or as agents has a checkered past. Often, an intelligence agency's greatest highs and lowest lows can be tracked to the mercurial mental state of untrained, undisciplined individuals. This is the final report in an on-going examination of a civilian asset who is presumed to be valuable.

_Introduction_: Our only interaction with the subject was through a series of journal entries. He was required to log at least 500 words daily for a month (31 days of December). The procedure provided us with a clearer view into the current mental state of the subject. This current state is explored in this work, from multiples angles. A set of recommendations, designed to increase the overall performance of the subject in conforming to agency expectations, is presented at the end of this report.

_Methodology_: The final report includes both our human observations, based on our experience and correlation with other journals, and an analysis of the word choice selection and the patterns that are detected. These provide two reasonably independent views of the psychological make-up and the current mental state of the subject. This method has proven successful in the past, in garnering additional value from subjects ranging from civilians to intelligence agents to government officials [1].

_Final Human Observations:_ The subject continued to fixate on Agent Walker. Six of his final fifteen entries were solely dedicated to his thoughts and desires regarding her. This level of obsession with a single person is unhealthy and indicative of potentially serious issues. Some of the actions and words are consistent with an unrequited crush – fresh fascination, while others are somewhat consistent with an existing relationship. The conflict between the two viewpoints is also understood by the subject, but he appears to have not reconciled them.

The subject also was very consumed by concern about his future. He had multiple entries in which he was trying to figure out what he was going to do with his life. This is not an uncommon reaction shortly after a significant change or for individuals in mid-life. Given the fact that the change in status happened approximately 15 months ago and the age of the subject, we find this to be somewhat disturbing. We believe that this indicates that the subject has not yet adapted to the changes which brought him into contact with the agencies. This level of inflexibility and clinging to old ways is not good for individuals affiliated with espionage.

The subject's sanity and humanity are unquestionable. The variety of topics discussed and different literary forms makes the likelihood of artificial intelligence creating the reports negligible. We see no signs of schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, severe depression, or any other severe mental abnormality.

_Word Choice Observations:_ At a mere 7% of the word choice, the subject uses "I" and "me" significantly less than most writers. This was the writer's most striking divergence from the norms we have developed in years of data accumulation. This, along with other factors, indicates that the subject has an exterior locus of control – that is, the subject tends to believe that factors outside of his control are responsible for positive and negative results in his life. This correlates to increased likelihood for depression and other mental illnesses. It has also proven to be an aspect of personality incompatible with undercover work.

Variety of word choice and grammatical composition of sentences has been shown to correlate to intelligence [2]. The data indicates the subject's IQ to be between 120 and 160. Given the ability to write 500-word entries which read naturally, we believe the upper end of that spectrum to be the better estimate. Eidetic memory was probably present in childhood and may still persist.

The subject's most frequent non-trivial word was "real" (73 instances). This word correlates with a desire to understand the situation, a compunction for solid facts on which to ground an understanding of the world, and is typically associated with engineers. This indicates an individual who will continue to experiment until his surroundings make sense, which may never happen. Experimentation in life is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a luxury that agents and others in life-and-death situations cannot afford.

One of the standard goals of the word choice observations work is to find other individuals with similar viewpoints or situations (as evidenced by phrasing and word choice) whose progress has been tracked over years. This normalization allows us to make estimates of the likely general trend which a subject will take in the future, by comparing the paths of similar subjects from the past. The current subject proved to be an outlier, however, and we cannot find enough matches sufficiently close to his values to justify making any predictions, based purely on word choice and phrasing. This is unfortunate, as this methodology has proven very successful in the past, albeit with large error margins [3]. In this particular case, the error margins grew so large as to completely distort any possible information which could be gleaned.

_Recommendations:_ The subject has provided a fairly comprehensive picture of his strengths and weaknesses in his journal. Both of these could and should be used to encourage him to act in a manner commensurate with our expectations. He has provided us enough leverage that ordering most of his actions should be straightforward. The largest wildcard is Agent Walker.

From our perspective, we cannot adequately judge the relative worth of Agent Walker and the subject. If Agent Walker is more valuable, she should be immediately reassigned. While the odds of her being compromised are relatively small (no greater than 20%, we judge), the likelihood will increase with time, as the subject has vowed to make her his. A longer-than-normal psychological debrief and evaluation should be scheduled with her in this case.

If the subject is more valuable than Agent Walker, then we recommend a shift in duties and an increase in her level of interaction with the subject. A third agent could be assigned, to work with Agent Casey on the violent aspects of the job, while Agent Walker assumes more of a babysitting role with the subject. This will increase the safety of the subject, while not increasing his problems with the situation, as he will presumably feel joy at additional time with Agent Walker. His safety will be guaranteed, then, as he will not be tempted to risk his value trying to save Agent Walker. A danger of this is an increased likelihood of compromise of Agent Walker, through either disgust at the appearance of being benched and forced to babysit or through romantic interest in the subject.

Regardless, the subject should be outfitted with more than one tracking device. He is intelligent and aware of the standard tracking device which surely has been implanted in his watch. He will attempt to flee detection, at some point. His location should be constantly monitored, through remote electronic means of which he is unaware. This secondary method should be discrete and implanted into any jewelry or clothes that he consistently wears but would not suspect. One or more K733 tracking device(s) should be used for this purpose.

To minimize the likelihood of compromise, the subject's feelings of loyalty to the agency should be strengthened. The easiest way of doing this, while eliminating one source of leverage for others who might wish to utilize the subject, is to pay him. Financial concerns are evident throughout his writings and something as simple as payment would serve the dual purposes of limiting the efficacy of that tactic in compromising the subject and of increasing the subject's loyalty and cooperation. The method of payment should be circumspect. A blog with paid advertising would be inappropriate, as the subject does not seem to limit information flow well. Perhaps an ambiguous software consulting role (with heavy hints about gaming) would serve, additionally providing suitable excuses for absences during missions. This had the added benefit of helping make the subject's cover to family and friends more believable.

The strengthening of attachment should be accentuated by showing the subject the very real consequences of his actions. We recommend using any of the multiple levers he has provided (either agent, his family, his co-workers) as an example, whenever he next knowingly jeopardizes the success of a mission or his own safety. The mission must be carefully architected so that the subject will know it was his error that caused the danger and discomfort, but so that the agency is not implicated in the actual danger/discomfort. This should further encourage him to follow orders.

Additionally, the subject seems unaware of the rationale behind decisions. While agents and military officers are trained to accept orders without question, civilians generally like to understand the rationale behind certain decisions. This tendency is correlated with intelligence and should be especially pronounced in the subject. A few minutes of explanation, even reasons that have been explained before, will probably ease his mind and make him more pliable.

We also recommend limiting the damage a compromise would bring. The subject is susceptible to multiple compromises on multiple levels through many angles. Limiting the amount of sensitive information which he knows would limit the desire to make the compromise and the cost to the agency of a successful compromise. Given the level of paranoia around this project, this recommendation may be too late, but the problem should not be compounded by continuing to provide sensitive information to the subject.

Similarly, we can in no way recommend the subject for consideration as an intelligence agent. His numerous control levers, his inability to keep secrets, his locus of control, and a host of other factors argue against his capability in an agent's role. Were he requesting higher clearance, we would probably also recommend against that. His profile is simply too erratic to safely assign significant responsibility.

Finally, we recommend that the subject be encouraged to continue to write out and express his feelings and emotions. While many excellent agents do not appear to need this release, civilians generally do. He should be trained in how to securely create and subsequently to delete/destroy a single journal entry The mere effort of writing should be encouraged and will hopefully help continue to ground the subject. We believe real progress was shown in the month of entries. Without continued outlet, however, the probability of backsliding is high.

_References:_

[1] Foreman, Kazlowski. "Report on Efficacy of Journaling-Based Analysis of Word Selection and Grammar." Joint Agency Special Report. May, 2005.  
[2] Gardner, Pardi. "Estimating Intelligence from Written Words and Grammar". Special commissioned study. September, 2003.  
[3] Kazlowski. "Revised Method for Studying Subjects Without Interaction". NSA Brief. September, 1989.  
[4] Subject's journal. December, 2008.

* * *

The weird numbers are MD5 hashes of the subject. So MD5("Chuck Bartowski") (in ASCII) yields the number 32e22… I honestly don't remember exactly which other report was which, but I know one was Roan Montgomery, one was Bryce Larkin, and one was George Bush. Thanks to all who attempted to solve the impossible riddle.

_As always, R&R is appreciated._


End file.
